The present invention relates to a hormone replacement therapy, to the associated compounds and to the associated packaging units, for alleviating menopause-associated symptoms which is based on the administration to a female mammal of an estetrol component at a specific daily dose, optionally in combination with a progestogenic component. The therapy enjoys a statistically significant efficacy combined with a favourable profile for side effects compared to currently available methods for alleviating menopause-associated symptoms.
|
1. A method of alleviating menopause-associated symptoms, comprising orally administering a composition comprising an estetrol component at a daily amount equivalent to about 15 mg of estetrol.
3. The method of
4. The method of
5. The method of
6. The method of
9. The method of
11. The method of
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Any and all applications for which a foreign or domestic priority claim is identified, for example, in the Application Data Sheet or Request as filed with the present application, are hereby incorporated by reference under 37 CFR 1.57, and Rules 4.18 and 20.6, including PCT Application No. PCT/EP2019/060221, filed Apr. 19, 2019, and EP Application No. 18168234.5, filed Apr. 19, 2018, EP Application No. 18174985.4, filed May 30, 2018 and EP Application No. 19150421.6, filed Jan. 4, 2019.
The present invention relates to hormone replacement therapy, to the associated compounds and to the associated packaging units, for alleviating menopause-associated symptoms which is based on the administration to a female mammal of an estetrol component at a specific daily dose, optionally in combination with a progestogenic component.
As further detailed herein, the therapy displays statistically significant efficacy combined with a favourable profile for side effects compared to currently available methods for alleviating menopause-associated symptoms.
Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is used to describe either unopposed oestrogen use (for women who have undergone hysterectomy) or combined oestrogen-progestin therapy (for women still having a uterus). The goal of HRT is to relieve menopausal symptoms, most importantly vasomotor symptoms (VMS), such as hot flushes. Other diseases and symptoms associated with perimenopause and menopause that respond to oestrogen therapy include osteoporosis, vaginal atrophy, and sleep disturbances (when related to hot flushes).
VMS occur most often in the late menopausal transition and early post-menopause. VMS are the most significant menopausal complaints. Estimates suggest that about 75% of women who are more than 50 years old will suffer from hot flushes (Utian et al., 2005, “Comparative controlled trial of a novel oral estrogen therapy, estradiol acetate, for relief of menopause symptoms” Menopause 12(6): 708-715). Most experience hot flushes for about two years, although around 10% suffer for more than 10 years (Rodstrom et al., 2002, “A longitudinal study of the treatment of hot flushes: the population study of women in Gothenburg during a quarter of a century” Menopause 9(3): 156-161). VMS can contribute towards physical and psycho-social impairment, with a consequent reduction in quality of life, and are one of the main reasons why women may seek medical care for the menopause (Santoro, 2008, “Symptoms of menopause: hot flushes” Clin Obstet Gynecol 51(3): 539-548).
The epithelial linings of the vagina and urethra are very sensitive to oestrogen, and oestrogen deficiency leads to thinning both epithelia. This results in vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) and urinary complaints, causing symptoms of vaginal dryness, itching, dyspareunia, dysuria, urinary frequency and an increased risk of recurrent urinary infections. In early 2014, the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH) and the North American Menopause Society (NAMS) endorsed the new terminology “genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM)” to replace the VVA terminology. The rationale for using this new terminology was that VVA term was too restrictive whereas GSM was a more comprehensive term that includes symptomatic VVA as well as lower urinary tract symptoms related to low oestrogen levels (Portman et al., 2014, “Genitourinary syndrome of menopause: new terminology for vulvovaginal atrophy from the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society” Menopause 21(10): 1063-1068). Note that the GSM terminology has not yet been adopted in guidance for industry issued by the FDA and EMA, therefore the VVA terminology will be used herein.
Oestrogen therapy remains the gold standard for relief of menopausal symptoms, in particular VMS. All routes of administration appear to be equally effective for symptom relief, but their metabolic effects differ. Oestrogens should be administered continuously; past regimens where oestrogen was administered day 1 to day 25 of the calendar month are considered to be obsolete. Women will often get VMS during the days off, and there is no known advantage to stopping for several days each month.
With current HRT, all women with an intact uterus need a progestin in addition to oestrogen to prevent endometrial hyperplasia—and subsequent carcinoma—which occurs after as little as 6 months of oestrogen therapy. The progestin may be administered continuously or sequentially (e.g., 10 to 14 days each month or for 14 days every 3 months).
Oestrogen therapy is the most consistently effective treatment used in the US and Europe for menopausal VMS. Following the safety issues reported in the primary Women's Health Initiative publications (Anderson et al., 2004, “Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial” JAMA 291(14): 1701-1712) and with continued subject requests for treatment, a challenge to clinicians has been to identify the lowest effective dose of oestrogen for alleviating menopausal symptoms (Simon et al., 2007, “Menopausal hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms: balancing the risks and benefits with ultra-low doses of estrogen” Expert Opin Investig Drugs 16(12): 2005-2020). In addition, it is a challenge to develop a safer oestrogen than those currently used.
In a 2016 publication, Coelingh Bennink et al; (“Clinical effects of the fetal estrogen estetrol in a multiple-rising-dose study in postmenopausal women”, Maturitas, 2016 September; 91:93-100) report a partly randomized, open-label, multiple-rising-dose study in 49 postmenopausal women who received either 2 mg estetrol or 2 mg estradiol-valerate per day for 28 days (randomized part of the study) followed by dose-escalation at 10, 20 and 40 mg estetrol per day (non-randomized part of the study). The authors compared the efficacy of estradiol-valerate (2 mg) and only two doses of estetrol (2 and 10 mg) on the relief of hot flushes on subjects with >35 hot flushes per week at screening (note a. to Table 1). The authors report a decrease in the mean number of hot flushes and sweating already with the 2 mg estetrol per day dose, while at the same time endometrial thickness was found to be stable in the 2 mg estetrol group but increasing in the 10 mg estetrol group (abstract).
From this study, since the authors did not measure VMS in the 20 mg and 40 mg estetrol groups, it is apparent to the skilled person that the authors considered only the lower doses (2 mg and 10 mg) to be suitable for the management of VMS. Further, the skilled person learns that a daily dose of 2 mg estetrol is as effective as a daily dose of 10 mg estetrol at decreasing the number of hot flushes per day (see for example FIG. 3 in Coelingh Bennink et al., Maturitas, 2016). In addition, the publication teaches the skilled person that the 2 mg daily dose does not alter endometrial thickness while the 10 mg daily dose has an important effect on endometrial thickness (see for example FIG. 2 in Coelingh Bennink et al., 2016). The skilled person would thus conclude that the Minimal Effective Dose of estetrol for the treatment of VMS is 2 mg per day.
Against this background, the present inventors have now surprisingly found that the Minimal Effective Dose of estetrol for the alleviation of VMS in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women is of about 15 mg daily.
The determination of the Minimal Effective Dose indeed revolves around a number of parameters which take into account not only the mean number of VMS per day (as was done by Coelingh Bennink et al in Maturitas, 2016), but also the severity of VMS, and also a weekly weighted score, as further defined herein.
Thus, in terms of efficacy, it was surprisingly found that a daily dose of 15 mg was required to obtain a definite effect on VMS.
Furthermore, the Minimal Effective Dose is set taken due account of treatment-associated side effects as reflected for example in the number of patients leaving the study in each group, or in the number of biopsies which had to be performed in each group.
In this regard, it was unexpected to observe, from parameters such as the total number of adverse events, the number of biopsies, or the number of patients leaving the study, a better safety profile for a patient group treated with a daily dose of 15 mg of estetrol than for a patient group treated with a lower daily dose of 10 mg of estetrol.
In the following numbered paragraphs 1 to 15, embodiments of the invention are described.
In the following numbered paragraphs 16 to 30, additional embodiments of the invention are described.
In the following numbered paragraphs 31 to 45, additional embodiments of the invention are described.
In the following numbered paragraphs 46 to 53, additional embodiments of the invention are described.
The skilled person will understand that the embodiments described in numbered paragraphs 47 to 53 may equivalently be presented as a kit-of-parts containing a first packaging unit, e.g. a blister pack, containing the daily oral dosage units comprising the estetrol component, and a second, distinct, packaging unit, e.g. a second, distinct, blister pack, containing the daily oral dosage units comprising the progestogenic component.
The skilled person will additionally know that, within the scope of the present invention, each packaging unit, e.g. blister pack, may be numbered or otherwise marked.
Within the scope of the invention, each packaging unit may be a sealed blister pack with a cardboard, paperboard, foil plastic backing and enclosed in a suitable cover.
In a particular embodiment of the invention the packaging unit comprises 28 containers or a multiple of 28 containers, such as 2 to 12 multiple of 28 containers.
The term “estetrol component”, as used throughout this document, encompasses substances selected from the group consisting of estetrol, esters of estetrol wherein the hydrogen atom of at least one of the hydroxyl groups has been substituted by an acyl radical of a hydrocarbon carboxylic, sulfonic acid or sulfamic acid of 1-25 carbon atoms; and combinations thereof. Even more preferably, the estetrol component is estetrol (including estetrol hydrates). Most preferably, the estetrol component contained in the dosage unit is estetrol monohydrate.
The term “estetrol” as used herein refers to 1,3,5 (10)-estratrien-3,15alpha,16alpha,17beta-tetrol or 15alpha-hydroxyestriol as well as hydrates of estetrol, e.g. estetrol monohydrate.
The term “progestogenic component” is defined as a substance that is capable of triggering a progestogenic response in vivo or a precursor which is capable of liberating such a substance in vivo. Usually progestogenic components are capable of binding to a progestogen receptor.
In the context of the present invention, other compounds may be used in conjunction with the estetrol component for administering to women who have a uterus. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) defines a category of such compounds, which are contemplated as useful complements to the estetrol component in the methods of the invention. A preferred SERM for use in the context of the present invention is bazedoxifene.
In the methods and compositions further described herein, it has to be understood that when reference is made to a “progestogenic component”, such reference includes SERMs and in particular bazedoxifene.
“About” as used herein referring to a measurable value such as a parameter, an amount, a temporal duration, and the like, is meant to encompass variations of +/−10% or less, more preferably +/−5% or less, even more preferably +/−1% or less of and from the specified value, in so far such variations are appropriate to perform in the disclosed invention. However, it is to be understood that the value to which the modifier “about” refers is itself also specifically disclosed.
The term “an effective amount” refers to an amount necessary to obtain a physiological effect. The physiological effect may be achieved by one dose or by repeated doses.
The term “perimenopause” as used herein (also in the context of “perimenopausal women” and “perimenopausal subject” and the like) refers to a period of life which begins approximately three to four years prior to menopause and ends one year after the final menstrual period. Perimenopause is characterized by persistent irregular menstrual cycles, extreme fluctuations in hormonal levels, frequent anovulation and the appearance of VMS (for reference: Harlow et al., Menopause, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2012, “Executive summary of the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop+10: addressing the unfinished agenda of staging reproductive aging”—see in particular FIG. 2 therein). During this transition period, the emphasis of clinical care changes. Although women still need effective contraception during perimenopause, issues including loss of bone mineral density, menstrual cycle changes, and vasomotor instability also need to be addressed. A significant number of women also experience depressive symptoms, such as mood swings, irritability, and poor concentration (Bosworth et al., Psychosom Med., 2001, July-August; 63(4):603-8, “Depressive symptoms, menopausal status, and climacteric symptoms in women at midlife”).
The term “postmenopause” as used herein (also in the context of “postmenopausal women” and “postmenopausal subject” and the like) covers firstly spontaneous post-menopausal women, i.e. women who have encountered natural menopause defined as the permanent cessation of menstrual periods, determined retrospectively after a woman has experienced 12 months of amenorrhea without any other obvious pathological or physiological cause. It occurs at a median age of 51.4 years in normal women and is a reflection of complete, or near complete, ovarian follicular depletion, with resulting hypoestrogenemia (with estradiol levels often below 20 pg/mL) and high follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH level >40 IU/L) concentrations. The term “postmenopause” also includes menopause as the consequence of premature ovarian failure, surgery (ovariectomy for example), chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer, and certain diseases (for example, infections or hypothyroidism).
The term “VMS” as used herein (alternatively in its non-abbreviated form, “vasomotor symptoms”) corresponds to thermo-regulatory disturbances characteristic of menopause. VMS includes hot flashes (also sometimes spelled “hot flushes”), sweating attacks such as night sweats, chills and increased perspiration, and palpitations. VMS are episodes of profuse heat accompanied by sweating and flushing, experienced predominantly around the head, neck, chest, and upper back. As further defined below, VMS are classified into mild, moderate and severe categories.
The terms “Menopause-associated symptoms”, as used herein, is used to describe VMS as defined above, but also includes the emotional aspects of the menopausal transition (including, but not limited to, depression, irritability, mood changes, insomnia, sleep disturbance, anxiety and nervous tension) and the physiological aspects of the menopausal transition (including, but not limited to joint pain, loss of bone density, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, dryness of the vagina, uterine prolapse, changes in skin texture, weight gain and dyspareunia, as well as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes).
As used herein, the terms “Quality of Life” (and the abbreviation “QoL”) refers to a parameter which can be assessed, for example, by using questionnaires, such as, by way of example and not limitation, the “Menopause Rating Scale” questionnaire (Heinemann et al., 2003, “International versions of the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS)” Health Qual Life Outcomes 1: 28; Heinemann et al., 2004, “The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) scale: A methodological review”. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2: 45; Heinemann et al., 2004, “The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) as outcome measure for hormone treatment? A validation study”. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2:67; as further detailed below in Example 1 Section C.) or the MENQOL questionnaire (The Menopause-specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire, Hilditch et al.; Maturitas 1996; A menopause-specific quality of life questionnaire: development and psychometric properties; 24(3); p. 161-175).
As used herein, “BMI” (or “Body Mass Index” in its non-abbreviated form refers to an index relating to weight and height of a subject, which is calculated by dividing the subject's weight in kilograms by the subject's height in meters squared. A BMI of 27.3 or more classifies the female subject as “overweight” while a BMI of 30 or more classifies the subject as “obese”.
Determination of the Minimum Effective Dose
To determine the Minimum Effective Dose (MED), firstly the selection criteria required that patients presented at least 7 moderate to severe VMS/day or at least 50 moderate to severe VMS/week in the week preceding randomization. Secondly, a placebo group was included in a double-blind fashion. Thirdly, the total patient number was such that statistical significance could be obtained between separate arms of the study. Fourthly, the absolute change from baseline in weekly frequency of moderate to severe VMS was taken into account. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed based on the untransformed change in weekly frequency of moderate to severe VMS from baseline. Finally, the change in severity from baseline was evaluated. For this, the Severity Scoring System of VMS was documented by the subjects as follows:
In addition, a severity score of zero was attributed to the patients who have experienced a 100% VMS relief during a given week.
From these score records, the severity at baseline was calculated by taking into account only moderate and severe VMS, such that the total number of moderate VMS during the 7 days of the baseline week was multiplied by 2 and added to the total number of severe VMS during the 7 days of the baseline week multiplied by 3. This total was then divided by the total number of moderate and severe VMS during the baseline week.
The severity at weeks 4 and 12 was calculated using the following formula for each of these weeks:
This method was used to generate the data included in Example 1 further below, under section A. b) “VMS Severity”.
In an alternative embodiment, the VMS Severity is assessed as follows: the severity at baseline is also calculated by taking into account only moderate and severe VMS, such that the total number of moderate VMS during the 7 days of the baseline week is multiplied by 2 and added to the total number of severe VMS during the 7 days of the baseline week multiplied by 3. This total is then divided by the total number of moderate and severe VMS during the baseline week.
The severity at weeks 4 and 12, however, is calculated using the following formula for each of these weeks:
In another embodiment, the severity score can be calculated according to the method described in Archer et al, 2014 (A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the lowest effective dose of drospirenone with 17A-estradiol for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women; Menopause, 2014; 21(3); p. 227-235). According to this method, a daily severity score is calculated using the following formula for each day during 7 days
The same formula is applied during 7 consecutive days, the 7 resulting numbers are summed together and divided by 7 to calculate the “weekly mean daily severity” score of moderate to severe VMS.
Further, the terms “Hot Flush Weekly Weighted Score”, as used herein, corresponds to a score taking into account frequency and severity which is calculated by using the severity score (as calculated above): [(1× No. of mild VMS)+(2× No. of moderate VMS)+(3× No. of severe VMS)] during a 7 day period.
Such a weighted score was for example used by Notelovitz et al. (“Initial 17β-Estradiol Dose for Treating Vasomotor Symptoms”; Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 95(5), May 2000, p. 726-731). This score was used to generate the data included in Example 1 further below, under section A. c) “Hot Flush Weekly Weighted Score”.
In alternative embodiments, any combination of the above described methods maybe employed to evaluate the weekly severity and/or frequency of VMS.
Hormone Replacement Therapy
The present therapy usually employs continuous administration of the estetrol component during a period of at least 10 days, preferably of at least 20 days.
When the present therapy is administered to a patient who has undergone hysterectomy, the estetrol component is preferably administered as sole active ingredient.
When the present therapy is administered to a patient who still has a uterus, the estetrol component may be administered as sole active ingredient or may be administered together with an optional progestogenic component. Said optional progestogenic component may be administered continuously (i.e. every day in addition to the estetrol component) or sequentially (wherein sequentially means an administration of the progestogenic component during, for example, 10 to 14 days each month or during 14 days every 3 months).
The terms “continuous”/“continuously” as used herein, means that the components are administered at relatively regular intervals, with no (therapeutically) significant interruptions. Naturally, minor interruptions may occur that do not affect the overall effectiveness of the present method, and indeed such aberrations are encompassed by the present invention. In a preferred embodiment, and more arithmetically, the administration regimen is deemed to be continuous if the longest interval between 2 subsequent administrations is not more than 3.5 times as long as the average interval. Even more preferably said longest interval is not more than 2.5 times, most preferably not more than 1.5 times as long as the average interval.
In one embodiment, the optional progestogenic component is administered via a non-oral route, for example using an Intra Uterine Device (IUD). In one embodiment said IUD delivers the progestogenic component levonorgestrel. In one such embodiment, the IUD is the Mirena® IUD or the Levosert® IUD.
In one embodiment, the present therapy employs oral, sublingual, buccal, or sublabial administration of the estetrol component. These latter 3 modes of administration offer the advantages that the estetrol component does not have to pass through the digestive system and avoids first-pass liver exposure. Furthermore, these modes of administration provide a rapid onset of action.
The term “sublingual” as used herein refers to the pharmacological route of administration by which the estetrol component diffuses into the blood through tissues under the tongue.
The term “buccal” as used herein refers to the pharmacological route of administration by which the estetrol component diffuses into the blood through tissues of the buccal vestibule, the area inside the mouth between the lining of cheek (the buccal mucosa) and the teeth/gums.
The term “sublabial” as used herein refers to the pharmacological route of administration by which the estetrol component is placed between the lip and the gingiva.
In the present method, the estetrol and progestogenic components may be administered in separate dosage units. However, it is also possible and indeed very convenient to combine these two components into a single dosage unit.
In the method according to the present invention the combination of the progestogenic and estetrol component is suitably administered continuously during a period of at least 10 days.
The invention may suitably be reduced to practice in the form of a variety of administration methods that are known to the person skilled in the art. Amongst these methods are the methods making use of monophasic preparations, which contain dosage units with a constant amount of the estetrol component and of the optional progestogenic component.
In the embodiment of the invention where sequential administration of the progestogenic component is chosen, it is also possible and convenient to combine the components into a single dosage unit for the days when the two components are administered.
In one embodiment of the invention, the hormone replacement therapy is administered to a perimenopausal subject. In this embodiment, the subject will benefit from the alleviation of VMS through the administration of the composition of the invention, while simultaneously benefiting from a contraceptive effect. In the specific perimenopausal population, contraception is indeed often required, and since VMS appear during this time of life, the treatment of the invention will uniquely address these two needs in a single and simple treatment. In a particular embodiment of the invention, a hormonal replacement therapy for perimenopausal subjects consists in administering daily amounts of about 15 mg estetrol together with daily amounts of about 3 mg drospirenone, according to a 24/4 administration regimen. As used herein, a “24/4 administration regimen” is a combined monophasic administration regimen which involves the daily administration of the active pharmaceutical ingredients for about 24 days followed by an administration-free interval of about 4 days.
In another embodiment of the invention, the hormone replacement therapy is administered to a postmenopausal subject.
In a particular embodiment of the invention, the hormone replacement therapy is beneficially administered to take advantage of the absence of effect of the smoking status of the subject on the therapy of the invention. It has indeed long been known that smoking significantly reduces serum estrogen concentrations, such as reported for example in the clinical study analysis of Bjarnason et al. (Bjarnason et al.; Climacteric 2012; Acute and long-term estradiol kinetics in smoking postmenopausal women; 15:5; p. 449-454) who found that in the estrogen group, smoking leads to significantly lower levels of both serum estrone and serum estradiol at all post-randomization time points, while no differences between smokers and non-smokers were seen on placebo. Bjarnason et al. conclude that smoking reduces serum estrogens at both trough and after 2 h in postmenopausal women on estrogen treatment, that the effect of smoking on estrogen concentrations is fully expressed in women smoking ten or less cigarettes daily, and that the influence of smoking upon the metabolism of estrogen therapy is constant and without dose-response for standard smoking intensities.
In this particular embodiment, based on the surprising finding that the therapy of the invention is not affected by the smoking status of the subject, the hormone replacement therapy is preferably administered to a patient population smoking 5 or more cigarettes daily, to a patient population smoking 10 or more cigarettes daily, or to a patient population smoking 15 or more cigarettes daily.
In yet another particular embodiment of the invention, the hormone replacement therapy is beneficially administered to take advantage of the absence of effect of the BMI of the subject on the therapy of the invention. It has indeed been surprisingly found that contrary to the prior art hormone replacement therapies, the efficacy of the therapy of the invention is not affected by the BMI value of the subject. In this particular embodiment, the hormone therapy of the invention is preferably administered to a subject whose BMI is 25 or more, 28 or more, 30 or more, 33 or more, 35 or more, 37 or more, or 40 or more, In this particular embodiment, the hormone therapy of the invention is preferably administered to an overweight subject, or to an obese subject.
The hormone replacement therapy of the invention was found to be particularly beneficial for alleviating menopause-associated symptoms while having an extremely limited impact on a large number of hepatic, haemostatic, endocrine and metabolic parameters. It is indeed the case that the HRT treatments of the prior art have a negative impact on these parameters. Surprisingly and very beneficially, the treatment of the present invention was found by contrast to not modify, or to only minimally modify, most parameters.
Compositions
The estetrol component of the present invention encompasses substances selected from the group consisting of estetrol, esters of estetrol wherein the hydrogen atom of at least one of the hydroxyl groups has been substituted by an acyl radical of a hydrocarbon carboxylic, sulfonic acid or sulfamic acid of 1-25 carbon atoms; and combinations thereof. More preferably, the estetrol component is estetrol (including estetrol hydrates). Most preferably, the estetrol component contained in the dosage unit is estetrol monohydrate.
The estetrol component of the invention is used at a daily dose equivalent to about 15 mg of estetrol monohydrate. In other words, when the estetrol component is not estetrol monohydrate itself, the daily dose of the estetrol component is adjusted to yield a therapeutic effect equivalent to that of a daily dose of 15 mg of estetrol monohydrate.
In a particularly preferred embodiment of the invention the pharmaceutical composition according to invention is designed for daily administration, i.e. it represents a daily dosage unit.
In the case of oral administration, the oral dosage unit according to the invention is preferably a solid or semi-solid dosage form such as tablets, capsules, cachets, pellets, pills, powders and granules. The term “solid or semi-solid dosage form” also encompasses capsules that contain a liquid, e.g. an oil, in which the present estetrol component and/or the optional progestogenic component is dissolved or dispersed. Tablets and equivalent solid and semi-solid dosage forms can suitably contain materials such as binders (e.g. hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, other cellulosic materials and starch), diluents (e.g. lactose and other sugars, starch, dicalcium phosphate and cellulosic materials), disintegrating agents (e.g. starch polymers and cellulosic materials) and lubricating agents (e.g., stearates and talc). These tablets and equivalent solid dosage forms may be prepared by wet granulation, e.g. using an aqueous solution or an organic solution, as well as by direct compression.
In the case of sublingual, buccal or sublabial administration, the pharmaceutical composition according to the invention is preferably an orodispersible dosage unit.
The term “orodispersible dosage unit” as used herein refers to a dosage unit that is designed to rapidly disintegrate in the oral cavity when it comes into contact with saliva and to disperse the estetrol component into the saliva so it may be absorbed through the mucosal lining of the oral cavity.
When the dosage unit is an orodispersible dosage unit, the rate of release of the estetrol component from the dosage unit can suitably be determined using the disintegration test according to Ph. Eur. 2.9.1 (“Disintegration of tablets and capsules”) and USP <701> (“Disintegration”), for example using water as the disintegration medium. An orodispersible solid dosage unit of the present invention, when subjected to the aforementioned disintegration test, typically disintegrates within less than 5 minutes, more preferably within less than 2 minutes, still more preferably within less than 1.5 minutes, still more preferably within less than 1 minute, still more preferably within less than 45 seconds, and most preferably within less than 30 seconds.
When the patient still has a uterus, an optional progestogenic component may be administered in addition to the estetrol component.
Examples of progestogenic components which may suitably be used in accordance with the present invention include: levonorgestrel, norgestimate, norethisterone, dydrogesterone, drospirenone, 3-beta-hydroxydesogestrel, 3-ketodesogestrel, 17-deacetylnorgestimate, 19-norprogesterone, acetoxypregnenolone, allylestrenol, amgestone, chlormadinone, cyproterone, demegestone, desogestrel, dienogest, dihydrogesterone, dimethisterone, ethisterone, ethynodiol diacetate, fluorogestone acetate, gastrinone, gestodene, gestrinone, hydroxymethylprogesterone, hydroxyprogesterone, lynestrenol, mecirogestone, medroxyprogesterone, megestrol, mele, gestrol, nomegestrol, norethindrone, norethynodrel, norgestrel (including d-norgestrel, and dl-norgestrel), norgestrienone, normethisterone, progesterone, quingestanol, (17 alpha)-17-hydroxy-11-methylene-19-norpregna-4, 15-dien-20-yn-3-one, tibolone, trimegestone, algestone-acetophenide, nestorone, promegestone, 17-hydroxyprogesterone esters, 19-nor-17hydroxyprogesterone, 17alpha-ethynyltestosterone, 17alpha-ethynil-19-nortestosterone, d-17beta-acetoxy-13beta-ethyl-17alpha-ethynylgon-4-en-3-one oxime, 6beta, 7beta; 15beta,16beta-dimethylene-3-oxo-17-pregna-4,9(11)-diene-21, 17beta-carbolactone or tanaproget and precursors of these compounds that are capable of liberating these progestogens in vivo when used in the present method.
Preferably the progestogenic component used in the present method is selected from the group consisting of progesterone, drospirenone, dydrogesterone, precursors of these progestogens and mixtures thereof.
In one embodiment, the invention provides a combination composition comprising an estetrol component together with progesterone.
In one embodiment, the invention provides a combination composition comprising an estetrol component together with drospirenone.
In one embodiment, the invention provides a combination composition comprising an estetrol component together with dydrogesterone.
When the progestogenic component of the invention is drospirenone, it is preferably used at a daily dose of from 0.5 mg to 10 mg, even more preferably of from 1 mg to 4 mg.
When the progestogenic component of the invention is dydrogesterone, it is preferably used at a daily dose of about 5 mg to about 10 mg, more preferably at a daily dose of about 5 mg.
When the progestogenic component of the invention is progesterone, it is preferably used at a daily dose of from 50 mg to 200 mg. In one embodiment, progesterone is used at a daily dose of 50 mg to 100 mg when it is used continuously. In another embodiment, progesterone is used at a daily dose of 100 mg to 200 mg when it is used sequentially, for example when it is administered during about 14 days every month.
When a different progestogenic component is used, the daily dose is adjusted such as to give the same pharmacological effect as a dose of 50 mg to 200 mg of progesterone.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the composition combines the estetrol component and the optional progestogenic component into a single dosage unit, preferably a daily dosage unit. In a more preferred embodiment of the invention, said combined daily dosage unit is an oral combined daily dosage unit.
In one embodiment, the invention provides an oral combined daily dosage unit comprising an estetrol component and progesterone.
In one embodiment, the invention provides an oral combined daily dosage unit comprising an estetrol component and drospirenone.
In one embodiment, the invention provides an oral combined daily dosage unit comprising an estetrol component and dydrogesterone.
In a particular embodiment of the invention wherein the treated subjects are perimenopausal subjects, the compositions of the invention are supplied as a kit-of-parts, wherein in a suitable packaging such as a blister pack, individual daily dosage units for an administration period of about 28 days are supplied. Preferably said daily dosage units are oral daily dosage units.
In a preferred embodiment for the treatment of perimenopausal subjects, a kit of parts containing 24 daily dosage units comprising estetrol and drospirenone in addition to 4 placebo daily dosage units is provided. In yet a preferred embodiment for the treatment of perimenopausal subjects, the kit of parts contains 24 daily dosage units each comprising about 15 mg of estetrol and about 3 mg of drospirenone, in addition to 4 placebo daily dosage units.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the composition combines estetrol at a daily dose of about 15 mg with progesterone at a daily dose of about 100 mg.
In another embodiment of the invention, the estetrol component is administered to a patient who still has a uterus in conjunction with a Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM), in particular in conjunction with bazedoxifene. Preferably bazedoxifene is administered at a daily dose of about 10 mg to 50 mg. More preferably, bazedoxifene is administered at a daily dose of about 20 mg.
In one embodiment, the invention provides a combination therapy comprising an estetrol component together with bazedoxifene.
In one embodiment, the invention provides an oral combined daily dosage unit comprising an estetrol component and bazedoxifene.
The present invention has been described above with reference to a number of exemplary embodiments. Modifications and alternative implementations of some parts or elements are possible, and are included in the scope of protection as defined in the appended claims.
Study Enrolment and Duration:
Enrolment was approximately 18 months. Individual subject participation was up to 27 weeks: up to 6 weeks pre-screening and washout, up to 4 weeks screening and run-in period, up to 91 days (13 weeks) of E4/placebo treatment followed by 2 weeks (14 days) of progestin therapy and a Follow up visit 1 week after completion of progestin therapy in non-hysterectomised subjects only.
Primary Efficacy Objective:
To define the minimum effective dose (MED) of the oral dose of E4 by evaluating changes in frequency and in severity of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS).
Methodology:
This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, dose-finding study.
Subject Population:
Eligible subjects were hysterectomised and non-hysterectomised post-menopausal women aged 40 to 65 years, inclusive, presenting at least 7 moderate to severe hot flushes/day or at least 50 moderate to severe hot flushes/week.
Diagnosis and Inclusion Criteria:
The subjects have met all of the following inclusion criteria at the randomization visit. These criteria were assessed during the screening period:
Potential study subjects were excluded if one of the following exclusion criteria was present at the randomization visit. These criteria were assessed during the screening period:
This principle asserts that the effect of a treatment policy can be best assessed by evaluating on the basis of the intention to treat a subject (i.e. the planned treatment regimen) rather than the actual treatment given. It has the consequence that subjects allocated to a treatment group should be followed up, assessed and analysed as members of that group irrespective of their compliance to the planned course of treatment.
Further, the intention-to-treat principle implies that the primary analysis should include all randomised subjects.
Preservation of the initial randomisation in analysis is important in preventing bias and in providing a secure foundation for statistical tests. In many clinical trials the use of the full analysis set provides a conservative strategy. Under many circumstances it may also provide estimates of treatment effects which are more likely to mirror those observed in subsequent practice.
In the present study, the Intention-To-Treat group included a total of 257 patients. Subjects were randomly allocated to one of the 5 treatment arms in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio. The randomisation was stratified by centre.
Study Visits:
Notation as used
throughout all tables,
Week
Visit
listings and figures
Study part
Week −7
Visit 1 (Pre-
V1
Screening
to −4
Screening)
Week −4
Visit 1a
V1a
Screening
to −3
(Screening)
Week −1
Visit 2 (Baseline)
V2
Randomisation
Week 5
Visit 3
V3
Treatment period
Week 13
Visit 4 (EOT)
V4
End of treatment
Week 16
Visit 5 (EOS)
V5
End of study
Test Product and Reference Therapy, Dose, and Mode of Administration
All treatments (Estetrol, hereinafter, E4, [2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg] capsule) were administered once daily (QD) per os for at least 12 consecutive weeks until the last biological assessments (Day 91 maximum) had been performed.
Placebo, 1 capsule administered QD per os for at least 12 consecutive weeks until the last biological assessments (Day 90 maximum) have been performed.
If during the course of the trial, a double layer endometrial thickness ≥15 mm was detected on TVUS and/or abnormal uterine bleeding (in the judgement of the gynecologist in light of the oestrogen therapy) was reported by a non-hysterectomised woman, she underwent an endometrial biopsy and was treated with progestin (10 mg dydrogesterone) QD until end of Week 11 in a sequential way (i.e., a 14 day progestin treatment period followed by a 14 day progestin treatment pause) in addition to the E4/placebo treatment. If the endometrial biopsy showed endometrial hyperplasia, the subject participation was immediately stopped and the treatment of hyperplasia was performed as per local guidelines. If an abnormal uterine bleeding occurred again after a first normal endometrial biopsy, a thorough gynaecological examination and a TVUS were performed. If necessary in the judgment of the gynecologist, a second endometrial biopsy was performed. After the E4/Placebo treatment period, all non-hysterectomised subjects (including those having received the progestin previously) received progestin therapy for 14 days with 10 mg dydrogesterone QD.
Results
A. Vasomotors Parameters for Each of the 5 Treatment Groups
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Placebo
Week
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
−17.28
19.71
−15.04
17.36
−13.37
19.59
−14.86
16.45
−16.65
16.24
2
−25.10
23.91
−21.68
19.26
−23.47
24.74
−29.19
20.25
−27.38
23.16
3
−32.46
26.15
−24.38
21.36
−31.34
25.21
−36.30
23.23
−30.16
23.09
4
−35.89
31.57
−27.57
22.47
−36.38
22.62
−41.43
21.60
−32.94
23.14
5
−37.16
33.27
−30.70
23.05
−39.07
21.55
−44.34
20.95
−34.70
23.01
6
−39.98
35.44
−38.02
22.13
−42.56
21.18
−46.58
19.83
−37.18
21.25
7
−42.44
36.96
−38.23
21.73
−43.30
22.18
−48.51
19.34
−38.55
21.85
8
−43.62
38.43
−38.55
23.54
−44.46
23.30
−48.35
19.75
−38.13
21.69
9
−45.19
36.91
−39.34
23.51
−45.19
24.22
−49.62
18.97
−39.25
22.74
10
−45.54
37.93
−39.83
23.79
−45.93
23.58
−48.88
20.04
−41.12
21.82
11
−44.74
39.30
−41.46
23.59
−45.90
23.57
−49.92
19.42
−42.50
22.68
12
−45.04
38.91
−40.60
24.37
−47.21
22.87
−50.94
18.38
−42.97
22.31
In order to analyse the data recorded in this study, treatment groups have been compared using an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) with respect to the change in weekly frequency of moderate to severe VMS from baseline to weeks 4 and 12. The ANCOVA model includes treatment (“trt1”) and study centre (“SITEPOOL”) as a fixed effect and baseline (“base”) as a covariate.
The Table below presents a comparison over all treatment groups.
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0164
4
base
<.0001
4
SITEPOOL
0.2214
12
trt1
0.0384
12
base
<.0001
12
SITEPOOL
0.2706
Upon review, it was considered that the effect due to the study centre was not very important, and a second ANCOVA was performed without accounting for study centres.
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0130
4
base
<.0001
12
trt1
0.0254
12
base
<.0001
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−33.7959277
−40.006133
−27.585722
4
2.5
−32.2601479
−38.742792
−25.777504
4
5
−27.4372730
−34.135693
−20.738853
4
10
−35.3672857
−41.716169
−29.018402
4
15
−43.5996056
−50.256441
−36.942770
12
0
−43.7344395
−50.150527
−37.318352
12
2.5
−40.1310220
−46.828579
−33.433465
12
5
−40.6802008
−47.600688
−33.759714
12
10
−45.8376026
−52.396965
−39.278240
12
15
−53.8273074
−60.704831
−46.949784
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−33.6519764
−39.821576
−27.482377
4
2.5
−32.6798943
−39.056255
−26.303533
4
5
−27.8705668
−34.540176
−21.200958
4
10
−35.8741722
−42.156516
−29.591828
4
15
−44.3569892
−50.965323
−37.748656
12
0
−43.9304437
−50.292513
−37.568374
12
2.5
−40.6840423
−47.259323
−34.108761
12
5
−41.0122585
−47.889936
−34.134581
12
10
−46.5333871
−53.011718
−40.055056
12
15
−54.9073270
−61.721817
−48.092837
All statistical tests are supported by presenting Least Square adjusted mean (LS adjusted mean: the group means after having controlled for a covariate; also referred to as marginal means or estimated marginal means) and 95% confidence intervals for the respective treatment effects.
These LS adjusted means and Confidence Intervals are based on the statistical models used for the analysis.
The Confidence Intervals implies that if the same population is sampled on numerous occasions and interval estimates are made on each occasion, the resulting intervals would bracket the true population parameter in approximately 95% of the cases.
Analysis
Higher
Lower
Upper
Timepoint
dose
Lower
LS
95%
95%
(N)
(mg)
dose (mg)
adjusted mean
confidence limit
confidence limit
p_value
4
2.5
0
1.535780
−9.602669
12.674228
0.99183
4
5.0
0
6.358655
−4.958071
17.675380
0.44910
4
10.0
0
−1.571358
−12.573355
9.430639
0.99067
4
15.0
0
−9.803678
−21.033229
1.425873
0.10653
12
2.5
0
3.603418
−7.904295
15.111130
0.86103
12
5.0
0
3.054239
−8.637660
14.746138
0.92091
12
10.0
0
−2.103163
−13.469900
9.263574
0.97581
12
15.0
0
−10.092868
−21.694703
1.508967
0.10838
Analysis
Higher
Lower
Upper
Timepoint
dose
Lower
LS adjusted
95%
95%
(N)
(mg)
dose (mg)
mean
confidence limit
confidence limit
p_value
4
2.5
0
0.972082
−10.164048
12.108212
0.99860
4
5.0
0
5.781410
−5.579628
17.142447
0.53888
4
10.0
0
−2.222196
−13.242056
8.797664
0.96728
4
15.0
0
−10.705013
−21.979289
0.569264
0.06834
12
2.5
0
3.246401
−8.237137
14.729940
0.89864
12
5.0
0
2.918185
−8.797276
14.633647
0.93259
12
10.0
0
−2.602943
−13.966584
8.760697
0.94911
12
15.0
0
−10.976883
−22.602878
0.649111
0.07057
From these Tables, it can be seen that the 15 mg daily dose generates a near statistically significant difference with placebo at 4 weeks (p-value of 0.10653 in the first statistical analysis, and of 0.06834 in the analysis without pooled site) and at 12 weeks (p-value of 0.10838 in the first statistical analysis, and of 0.07057 in the analysis without pooled site).
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Placebo
Week
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
−23%
23%
−23%
28%
−21%
29%
−22%
33%
−26%
25%
2
−34%
27%
−33%
29%
−37%
37%
−46%
34%
−41%
35%
3
−44%
29%
−38%
33%
−48%
39%
−57%
34%
−45%
33%
4
−49%
33%
−43%
34%
−55%
35%
−67%
30%
−49%
32%
5
−50%
33%
−47%
34%
−60%
33%
−72%
28%
−52%
32%
6
−54%
36%
−57%
31%
−65%
33%
−76%
26%
−56%
30%
7
−57%
36%
−57%
30%
−66%
34%
−79%
25%
−58%
30%
8
−58%
38%
−57%
32%
−68%
35%
−79%
26%
−58%
31%
9
−61%
36%
−59%
32%
−69%
36%
−81%
24%
−60%
31%
10
−61%
37%
−60%
32%
−70%
35%
−80%
27%
−63%
30%
11
−60%
39%
−63%
31%
−70%
34%
−82%
25%
−65%
31%
12
−61%
38%
−62%
32%
−72%
33%
−84%
23%
−65%
30%
From this table, it can be seen that the 15 mg daily dose resulted in a reduction of over 80% in the frequency of moderate to severe VMS when compared to baseline.
The Table below presents a comparison over all treatment groups.
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0147
4
base
0.3684
4
SITEPOOL
0.3236
12
trt1
0.0100
12
base
0.1490
12
SITEPOOL
0.0958
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0107
4
base
0.2264
12
trt1
0.0065
12
base
0.0774
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−0.49080693
−0.578953
−0.402661
4
2.5
−0.48482309
−0.576836
−0.392811
4
5
−0.42247695
−0.517552
−0.327402
4
10
−0.54456428
−0.634678
−0.454450
4
15
−0.64721795
−0.741703
−0.552733
12
0
−0.64237949
−0.726371
−0.558388
12
2.5
−0.60565210
−0.693328
−0.517976
12
5
−0.60259514
−0.693189
−0.512001
12
10
−0.70041629
−0.786283
−0.614549
12
15
−0.80089486
−0.890927
−0.710863
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−0.48986685
−0.577115
−0.402619
4
2.5
−0.49532213
−0.585494
−0.405151
4
5
−0.43132298
−0.525642
−0.337004
4
10
−0.55503454
−0.643877
−0.466192
4
15
−0.66014529
−0.753597
−0.566693
12
0
−0.65107969
−0.735113
−0.567046
12
2.5
−0.62210640
−0.708956
−0.535256
12
5
−0.61436957
−0.705214
−0.523525
12
10
−0.71732171
−0.802891
−0.631752
12
15
−0.82338275
−0.913392
−0.733373
Analysis
Higher
Timepoint
dose
Lower
LS
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
(N)
(mg)
dose (mg)
adjusted mean
confidence limit
confidence limit
p_value
4
2.5
0
0.005984
−0.152112
0.164079
0.99995
4
5.0
0
0.068330
−0.092296
0.228956
0.68478
4
10.0
0
−0.053757
−0.209916
0.102401
0.81738
4
15.0
0
−0.156411
−0.315800
0.002977
0.05622
12
2.5
0
0.036727
−0.113917
0.187372
0.93696
12
5.0
0
0.039784
−0.113271
0.192840
0.92218
12
10.0
0
−0.058037
−0.206836
0.090762
0.74506
12
15.0
0
−0.158515
−0.310392
−0.006639
0.03771
From this Table it can be seen that the 15 mg daily dose generates a statistically significant difference with placebo at 12 weeks (p-value of 0.03771) and an almost statistically significant difference with placebo at 4 weeks (p-value of 0.05622).
It is particularly striking to observe the low p-values obtained for the 15 mg dose by comparison to the elevated p-values obtained for the 10 mg dose.
Analysis
Timepoint
Higher dose
Lower dose
LS
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
(N)
(mg)
(mg)
adjusted mean
confidence limit
confidence limit
p_value
4
2.5
0
−0.005455
−0.162937
0.152027
0.99996
4
5.0
0
0.058544
−0.102119
0.219206
0.78717
4
10.0
0
−0.065168
−0.221006
0.090670
0.69797
4
15.0
0
−0.170278
−0.329714
−0.010843
0.03206
12
2.5
0
0.028973
−0.122708
0.180654
0.97301
12
5.0
0
0.036710
−0.118034
0.191454
0.94271
12
10.0
0
−0.066242
−0.216339
0.083855
0.65761
12
15.0
0
−0.172303
−0.325866
−0.018741
0.02210
From this Table it can be seen that in the statistical analysis not accounting for site effects, the 15 mg daily dose generates a statistically significant difference with placebo at 4 weeks (p=0.03206) and at 12 weeks (p=0.02210).
It is particularly striking to observe the low p-values obtained for the 15 mg dose by comparison to the elevated p-values obtained for the 10 mg dose.
A first grouping of patients showing a response of 50% or more (relative change from baseline) was prepared. According to this analysis, at week 12, the 15 mg daily dose group contains 91.8% of responders, while the placebo group contains 65.5% of responders. The difference between these two groups has a p-value below 0.01, whereas the difference between the 10 mg daily dose group and the placebo group is not statistically significant (p value >0.1).
A second grouping of patients showing a response of 75% or more was prepared. According to this analysis, at week 12, the 15 mg daily dose group contains 77.6% of responders, while the placebo group contains 43.6% of responders. The difference between these two group has a p-value below 0.001, whereas the difference between the 10 mg daily dose group and the placebo group is not statistically significant (p value >0.05).
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Placebo
Week
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
−0.1542
−0.098
−0.2028
−0.072
−0.1638
2
−0.2112
−0.1199
−0.3007
−0.2853
−0.2746
3
−0.3246
−0.1574
−0.3983
−0.4842
−0.2676
4
−0.3373
−0.2341
−0.4842
−0.5897
−0.3327
5
−0.3984
−0.1683
−0.5107
−0.7432
−0.4146
6
−0.5014
−0.3212
−0.6086
−0.7035
−0.45
7
−0.4562
−0.2787
−0.643
−0.8112
−0.4645
8
−0.5359
−0.3239
−0.6644
−0.8854
−0.52
9
−0.5465
−0.3249
−0.6864
−0.9092
−0.5522
10
−0.6052
−0.3667
−0.709
−0.9628
−0.5514
11
−0.5564
−0.4161
−0.666
−1.0123
−0.6551
12
−0.6279
−0.4007
−0.6941
−1.0425
−0.6604
In order to better analyse the data recorded in this study, treatment groups have been compared using an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) with respect to the change in severity of moderate to severe VMS from baseline to mild, moderate and severe VMS at week 4 and week 12 for each active treatment versus placebo. For women who experienced 100% VMS relief at week 4 and/or week 12, a value of zero was attributed. The ANCOVA model includes treatment (“trt1”) as a fixed effect and baseline (“base”) as a covariate.
The Table below presents a comparison over all treatment groups.
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0119
4
base
0.3781
12
trt1
0.0032
12
base
0.7990
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−0.327801
−0.470747
−0.184854
4
2.5
−0.341092
−0.486518
−0.195666
4
5
−0.238552
−0.393041
−0.084063
4
10
−0.482536
−0.627769
−0.337303
4
15
−0.588755
−0.739764
−0.437746
12
0
−0.658280
−0.868694
−0.447865
12
2.5
−0.629592
−0.843656
−0.415528
12
5
−0.402567
−0.629971
−0.175163
12
10
−0.693404
−0.907183
−0.479624
12
15
−1.042087
−1.264369
−0.819805
Analysis
Lower
LS
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
Higher
dose
adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
dose (mg)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
p_value
4
2.5
0
−0.013291
−0.268767
0.242185
0.9998
4
5.0
0
0.089249
−0.174507
0.353004
0.8253
4
10.0
0
−0.154735
−0.409222
0.099751
0.3767
4
15.0
0
−0.260954
−0.520749
−0.001159
0.0486
12
2.5
0
0.028687
−0.347368
0.404743
0.9992
12
5.0
0
0.255713
−0.132530
0.643955
0.3062
12
10.0
0
−0.035124
−0.409723
0.339475
0.9981
12
15.0
0
−0.383807
−0.766221
−0.001394
0.0489
From this Table it can be seen that the 15 mg daily dose generates a statistically significant difference with placebo at 4 weeks (p-value of 0.0486) and at 12 weeks (p-value of 0.0489). The 15 mg dose thus significantly improves the severity of VMS at weeks 4 and 12 compared with placebo.
For the severity parameter also, the difference between the 10 mg and 15 mg doses is impressive: this is reflected firstly in the mean changes from baseline presented in the Table of section c) above, where for example at 12 weeks the LS adjusted mean for 10 mg is −0.69 (to be compared with −0.66 found for the placebo group), while it is −1.04 for the 15 mg daily dose group. This clear difference is mirrored by a near 8-fold improvement in the p-value at 4 weeks when switching from 10 mg to 15 mg per day, and an over 20-fold improvement in the p-value at 12 weeks when switching from 10 mg to 15 mg per day.
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Placebo
Week
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
−7%
−4%
−8%
−3%
−7%
2
−9%
−5%
−13%
−12%
−12%
3
−14%
−7%
−17%
−20%
−11%
4
−15%
−10%
−20%
−24%
−14%
5
−17%
−7%
−21%
−31%
−18%
6
−22%
−14%
−26%
−30%
−19%
7
−20%
−12%
−27%
−34%
−20%
8
−24%
−14%
−28%
−37%
−22%
9
−24%
−14%
−28%
−38%
−23%
10
−26%
−15%
−29%
−40%
−23%
11
−25%
−18%
−25%
−42%
−28%
12
−28%
−17%
−28%
−44%
−27%
From this table, it can be seen that the 15 mg daily dose resulted in a reduction of over 40% in the severity of moderate to severe VMS when compared to baseline.
The Table below presents a comparison over all treatment groups.
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0126
4
base
0.6594
12
trt1
0.0031
12
base
0.1651
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−0.140987
−0.200215
−0.081759
4
2.5
−0.145345
−0.205600
−0.085090
4
5
−0.095556
−0.159566
−0.031546
4
10
−0.201564
−0.261739
−0.141388
4
15
−0.242707
−0.305276
−0.180139
12
0
−0.279744
−0.368327
−0.191161
12
2.5
−0.275038
−0.365158
−0.184919
12
5
−0.164881
−0.260616
−0.069145
12
10
−0.286159
−0.376158
−0.196159
12
15
−0.437476
−0.531055
−0.343897
Analysis
Higher
Lower
LS
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
dose
dose
adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
p_value
4
2.5
0
−0.004358
−0.110211
0.101495
0.9999
4
5.0
0
0.045431
−0.063853
0.154714
0.7006
4
10.0
0
−0.060577
−0.166020
0.044866
0.4281
4
15.0
0
−0.101720
−0.209363
0.005922
0.0702
12
2.5
0
0.004705
−0.153612
0.163022
1.0000
12
5.0
0
0.114863
−0.048585
0.278310
0.2522
12
10.0
0
−0.006415
−0.164119
0.151289
0.9999
12
15.0
0
−0.157732
−0.318726
0.003261
0.0568
From this Table it can be seen that the 15 mg daily dose generates a near statistically significant difference with placebo at 12 weeks (p-value of 0.0568). The 15 mg daily dose improves the severity of VMS at weeks 4 and 12 compared with placebo, whereas the 10 mg daily dose here again is hardly distinguishable from placebo, especially so at 12 weeks.
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Placebo
Week
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
0
2.4151
1.8297
2.3773
2.219
2.0545
1
−40.805
−33.7092
−31.4591
−33.1745
−38.203
2
−58.6163
−49.1319
−54.0849
−67.6983
−64.1272
3
−74.8798
−56.9697
−73.5189
−85.1915
−70.45
4
−82.75
−64.8344
−87.2673
−98.8329
−77.936
5
−84.6062
−71.6181
−93.4648
−105.223
−83.073
6
−89.9842
−88.2337
−101.646
−110.268
−89.6742
7
−94.2468
−88.2989
−103.024
−115.263
−92.9248
8
−97.1084
−89.2039
−104.835
−115.656
−91.6603
9
−101.429
−90.923
−107.578
−118.578
−94.9918
10
−100.18
−91.4798
−109.514
−116.853
−99.4484
11
−97.6016
−95.8365
−109.532
−119.365
−102.771
12
−98.5424
−93.5117
−111.764
−121.777
−104.292
The Table below presents a comparison over all treatment groups.
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0128
4
base
<.0001
12
trt1
0.0107
12
base
<.0001
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−78.267781
−93.531339
−63.004223
4
2.5
−75.370737
−91.064629
−59.676845
4
5
−66.878234
−83.400001
−50.356467
4
10
−85.563378
−101.119727
−70.007030
4
15
−106.330686
−122.645517
−90.015855
12
0
−104.682568
−120.535991
−88.829145
12
2.5
−89.857250
−106.157637
−73.556864
12
5
−95.915504
−113.075759
−78.755249
12
10
−109.760136
−125.917663
−93.602609
12
15
−130.594733
−147.540056
−113.649411
Lower
Upper
Analysis
Higher
Lower
95%
95%
Timepoint
dose
dose
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
p_value
4
2.5
0
2.897044
−24.495634
30.289722
0.9970
4
5.0
0
11.389547
−16.739876
39.518971
0.7205
4
10.0
0
−7.295597
−34.556270
19.965075
0.9147
4
15.0
0
−28.062905
−55.994318
−0.131492
0.0485
12
2.5
0
14.825318
−13.625957
43.276593
0.5176
12
5.0
0
8.767064
−20.449428
37.983557
0.8780
12
10.0
0
−5.077568
−33.391737
23.236601
0.9785
12
15.0
0
−25.912165
−54.922995
3.098664
0.0951
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Placebo
Week
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
−22%
−22%
−20%
−19%
−24%
2
−32%
−32%
−35%
−43%
−40%
3
−43%
−37%
−47%
−56%
−43%
4
−47%
−43%
−54%
−66%
−47%
5
−48%
−46%
−58%
−70%
−51%
6
−51%
−56%
−64%
−74%
−55%
7
−53%
−56%
−64%
−78%
−57%
8
−55%
−56%
−66%
−78%
−57%
9
−57%
−58%
−67%
−80%
−58%
10
−57%
−59%
−68%
−79%
−62%
11
−56%
−61%
−69%
−80%
−64%
12
−57%
−60%
−70%
−82%
−65%
The Table below presents a comparison over all treatment groups.
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0108
4
base
0.4181
12
trt1
0.0024
12
base
0.0593
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−0.474107
−0.562044
−0.386170
4
2.5
−0.473966
−0.564382
−0.383549
4
5
−0.426177
−0.521362
−0.330991
4
10
−0.541886
−0.631510
−0.452262
4
15
−0.650317
−0.744310
−0.556323
12
0
−0.644566
−0.728624
−0.560509
12
2.5
−0.579457
−0.665884
−0.493029
12
5
−0.599251
−0.690237
−0.508264
12
10
−0.699351
−0.785021
−0.613681
12
15
−0.812214
−0.902061
−0.722368
Analysis
Higher
Lower
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
dose
dose
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
p_value
4
2.5
0
−0.473966
−0.564382
−0.383549
1.0000
4
5.0
0
−0.426177
−0.521362
−0.330991
0.8833
4
10.0
0
−0.541886
−0.631510
−0.452262
0.6745
4
15.0
0
−0.650317
−0.744310
−0.556323
0.0267
12
2.5
0
−0.579457
−0.665884
−0.493029
0.6744
12
5.0
0
−0.599251
−0.690237
−0.508264
0.8871
12
10.0
0
−0.699351
−0.785021
−0.613681
0.7861
12
15.0
0
−0.812214
−0.902061
−0.722368
0.0276
From this Table it can be seen that the 15 mg daily dose generates a statistically significant difference with placebo at 4 weeks (p-value of 0.0267) and at 12 weeks (p-value of 0.0276).
It is particularly striking to observe the low p-values obtained for the 15 mg dose by comparison to the elevated p-values obtained for the 10 mg dose.
B. Vasomotors parameters for the 10 mg and 15 mg groups by comparison to the placebo and inefficient doses (2.5 mg and 5 mg) grouped together
Based on the results observed in section A above, it became apparent that the two lowest doses tested (2.5 mg per day and 5 mg per day) did not show efficacy. A further analysis of the results was thus prepared, where data from these two doses were grouped with the placebo dose and compared to the 10 mg and 15 mg doses.
1. Relative change (% from baseline) in weekly frequency of moderate to severe VMS
Placebo with
10 mg
15 mg
2.5 and 5 mg
Week
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
−21%
29%
−22%
33%
−24%
25%
2
−37%
37%
−46%
34%
−35%
31%
3
−48%
39%
−57%
34%
−42%
32%
4
−55%
35%
−67%
30%
−47%
33%
5
−60%
33%
−72%
28%
−50%
33%
6
−65%
33%
−76%
26%
−56%
32%
7
−66%
34%
−79%
25%
−58%
32%
8
−68%
35%
−79%
26%
−58%
34%
9
−69%
36%
−81%
24%
−60%
33%
10
−70%
35%
−80%
27%
−61%
33%
11
−70%
34%
−82%
25%
−63%
34%
12
−72%
33%
−84%
23%
−63%
33%
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0039
4
base
0.3935
4
SITEPOOL
0.3308
12
trt1
0.0017
12
base
0.1244
12
SITEPOOL
0.0957
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−0.46779276
−0.521579
−0.414007
4
10
−0.54424142
−0.634204
−0.454279
4
15
−0.64752092
−0.741851
−0.553191
12
0
−0.61799510
−0.669162
−0.566828
12
10
−0.70075417
−0.786337
−0.615172
12
15
−0.80058459
−0.890322
−0.710847
Analysis
Timepoint
Higher
Lower
LS adjusted
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
(N)
dose (mg)
dose (mg)
mean
confidence limit
confidence limit
p_value
4
10.0
0
−0.076449
−0.193421
0.040523
0.26148
4
15.0
0
−0.179728
−0.301777
−0.057679
0.00218
12
10.0
0
−0.082759
−0.194036
0.028518
0.17979
12
15.0
0
−0.182589
−0.298696
−0.066483
0.00099
As already mentioned under Section A) above it is particularly striking to observe the low p-values obtained for the 15 mg daily dose by comparison to the elevated p-values obtained for the 10 mg daily dose demonstrating the unique relief obtained with the 15 mg daily dose.
2. Relative change (% from baseline) in Hot Flush Weekly Weighted Score:
Placebo with
10 mg
15 mg
2.5 and 5 mg
Week
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
−20%
28%
−22%
32%
−24%
25%
2
−34%
36%
−45%
32%
−36%
30%
3
−46%
39%
−56%
32%
−42%
31%
4
−53%
34%
−66%
29%
−46%
32%
5
−57%
32%
−70%
27%
−49%
33%
6
−62%
32%
−72%
26%
−54%
32%
7
−64%
32%
−75%
25%
−55%
31%
8
−66%
34%
−76%
26%
−56%
32%
9
−66%
34%
−78%
25%
−57%
31%
10
−68%
34%
−77%
27%
−59%
32%
11
−68%
33%
−79%
26%
−60%
33%
12
−69%
32%
−81%
24%
−60%
32%
Analysis Timepoint (N)
Covariate
p_value
4
trt1
0.0037
4
base
0.5294
4
SITEPOOL
0.3783
12
trt1
0.0015
12
base
0.0770
12
SITEPOOL
0.0487
Analysis
Planned
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
treatment
LS adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
4
0
−0.45362100
−0.506219
−0.401023
4
10
−0.51368261
−0.601866
−0.425499
4
15
−0.63242707
−0.724866
−0.539989
12
0
−0.59132448
−0.640861
−0.541788
12
10
−0.67757463
−0.760625
−0.594524
12
15
−0.76832743
−0.855386
−0.681269
Analysis
Higher
Lower
LS
Lower 95%
Upper 95%
Timepoint
dose
dose
adjusted
confidence
confidence
(N)
(mg)
(mg)
mean
limit
limit
p_value
4
10.0
0
−0.060062
−0.174760
0.054636
0.41666
4
15.0
0
−0.178806
−0.298114
−0.059498
0.00178
12
10.0
0
−0.086250
−0.194272
0.021772
0.14044
12
15.0
0
−0.177003
−0.289367
−0.064639
0.00097
As already mentioned under Section A) above, it can be seen that the 15 mg daily dose generates a statistically significant difference with placebo at 4 weeks (p-value of 0.00178) and at 12 weeks (p-value of 0.00097).
Again, it is particularly striking to observe the low p-values obtained for the 15 mg dose by comparison to the elevated p-values obtained for the 10 mg dose.
C. Menopause Rating Scale
The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) is a health-related quality of life scale allowing the measure of severity of age-/menopause-related complaints by rating a profile of symptoms (Heinemann et al., 2003, “International versions of the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS)” Health Qual Life Outcomes 1: 28; Heinemann et al., 2004, “The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) scale: A methodological review”. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2: 45; Heinemann et al., 2004, “The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) as outcome measure for hormone treatment? A validation study”. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2:67).
The score increases point by point with increasing severity of subjectively perceived complaints in each one of 11 items (severity expressed in 0 to 4 points in each item). By checking these 5 possible boxes of “severity” for each of the items in the questionnaire, the respondent provides her personal perception. The total MRS score ranges between 0 (asymptomatic) to 44 (highest degree of complaints). The minimal/maximal scores vary between three dimensions depending on the number of complaints allocated to the respective dimension of symptoms (Heinemann et al., 2003, Health Qual Life Outcomes 1: 28):
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Placebo
Week
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Baseline
16.5
7.2
16.5
7.3
17.6
7.6
16.4
8.1
18.2
8.9
Week 4
10.3
5.6
10.5
6.7
11.7
6.8
8.7
6.2
12.8
8.0
Week 12
9.5
6.7
11.0
7.7
9.7
6.9
8.1
5.8
11.4
7.8
The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) points to an overall improvement in quality of life, with the strongest effect for the 15 mg dose. At this dose, a statistically significant effect was observed by comparison with placebo at week 4, with a p-value of 0.0113 and a near statistically significant effect was observed at week 12, with a p-value of 0.0694.
D. Genito-Urinary Symptoms (GSM)
Change from baseline to week 12 in the following GSM symptoms (VVA subject self-assessment) were recorded:
Dose E4
Baseline
Week 12
p-value vs
(mg)
(mean ± SD)
(mean ± SD)
placebo
2.5
1 ± 0.90
0.5 ± 0.77
0.3345
5
1.3 ± 0.94
0.7 ± 0.86
0.1202
10
1 ± 0.93
0.5 ± 0.75
0.0798
15
1.1 ± 1.04
0.5 ± 0.68
0.0291*
Placebo
1.3 ± 1.10
0.9 ± 1.02
*p < 0.05 vs placebo at week 12.
Dose E4
Baseline
Week 12
p-value vs
(mg)
(mean ± SD)
(mean ± SD)
placebo
2.5
0.7 ± 0.96
0.3 ± 0.60
0.1717
5
0.6 ± 0.90
0.4 ± 0.65
0.9618
10
0.7 ± 0.87
0.3 ± 0.64
0.2487
15
0.5 ± 0.85
0.4 ± 0.70
0.931
Placebo
0.8 ± 0.92
0.5 ± 0.77
Dose E4
Baseline
Week 12
p-value vs
(mg)
(mean ± SD)
(mean ± SD)
placebo
2.5
0.2 ± 0.56
0 ± 0.19
0.2942
5
0.2 ± 0.56
0 ± 0.20
0.3488
10
0.2 ± 0.58
0.1 ± 0.23
0.3386
15
0.3 ± 0.58
0.3 ± 0.61
0.643
Placebo
0.2 ± 0.60
0.3 ± 0.55
Dose E4
Baseline
Week 12
p-value vs
(mg)
(mean ± SD)
(mean ± SD)
placebo
2.5
0.6 ± 0.77
0.3 ± 0.73
0.0763
5
1 ± 1.07
0.5 ± 0.78
0.0246*
10
0.6 ± 0.77
0.2 ± 0.36
0.0004**
15
0.7 ± 0.90
0.3 ± 0.54
0.0006**
Placebo
1 ± 1.14
0.7 ± 1.01
*p < 0.05 vs placebo at week 12;
**p < 0.001 vs placebo at week 12.
Baseline
Week 12
Dose E4
Presence
Absence
Presence
Absence
p-value vs
(mg)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
placebo
2.5
0
100
0
100
0.9958
5
6.4
91.5#
0
100
0.903
10
0
100
0
100
0.9955
15
0
97.9#
4.2
95.8
0.9308
Placebo
3.6
92.7#
3.6
96.4
#Some patients had no sexual activity
The evolution of the VVA symptoms points to an overall improvement, with the strongest effect for the 15 mg daily dose. For vaginal pain associated with sexual activity, significant differences with placebo are observed with the doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg daily with p-values of 0.0246, 0.0004 and 0.0006, respectively. Vaginal dryness, however, which is generally considered as the most bothersome symptom, is only significantly improved by the 15 mg daily dose, with a p-value of 0.0291.
E. Measurements Related to Treatment Side Effects
1. Number of patients with biopsies
Treatment Group
Placebo
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Number of patients
4
4
5
11
9
with biopsies
2. Adverse Events (AEs)
Treatment Group
Placebo
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Count of Treatment
71
61
63
95
82
Emergent AEs (TEAEs)
Percentage of patients
9.1
7.7
10.6
7.4
6.1
with severe TEAE
Percentage of patients
3.6
1.9
6.4
5.6
4.1
with TEAE leading to
Study Discontinuation
It can be seen from the Table above that the patients in the 15 mg group present less TEAEs than patients in the 10 mg group. In the 10 mg group of patients who had AEs, the average was 3.2 AEs per patient. By comparison, in the 15 mg group, patients who had AEs had on average 2.6 AEs. Globally, those data show that the 15 mg daily dose provides a significant relief of VMS without generating additional AEs for the patients. In addition, there were less requirements for biopsies in the 15 mg per day group than in the 10 mg per day group.
This is confirmed by the following statistical analysis. Using a Poisson regression model with a random effect for the patient and treatment group as a covariate to model the count of TEAEs in the different treatment groups, it can be shown that there is no statistical difference between the treatment groups (p value of 0.099). Second, a chi-square test was used to assess if the prevalence of patients reporting TEAEs in each treatment group was similar. No statistical difference was found between the treatment groups (p value of 0.575).
3. Patients leaving the study
Treatment Group
Placebo
2.5 mg
5 mg
10 mg
15 mg
Number of patients
14
9
11
15
8
leaving the study
Taziaux, Melanie, Rausin, Glwadys, Jost, Maud, Mawet, Marie
| Patent | Priority | Assignee | Title |
| 11666585, | Apr 19 2018 | ESTETRA SRL | Compounds and their uses for alleviating menopause-associated symptoms |
| 11793760, | Jun 18 2015 | ESTETRA SRL | Orodispersible dosage unit containing an estetrol component |
| 11896602, | Aug 05 2016 | ESTETRA SRL | Method for preventing pregnancy |
| 11957694, | Jun 18 2015 | ESTETRA SRL | Orodispersible dosage unit containing an estetrol component |
| 11964055, | Jun 18 2015 | ESTETRA SRL | Orodispersible dosage unit containing an estetrol component |
| Patent | Priority | Assignee | Title |
| 10000524, | Nov 08 2002 | MITHRA RECHERCHE ET DÉVELOPPEMENT SA | Synthesis of estetrol via estrone derived steroids |
| 10179140, | Jul 28 2010 | LABORATORIOS LEON FARMA SA | Pharmaceutical compositions comprising active drugs, contraceptive kits comprising active drugs, and methods of administering the same |
| 10201611, | Jul 12 2002 | ESTETRA SRL | Pharmaceutical composition comprising estetrol derivatives for use in cancer therapy |
| 10660903, | Jun 18 2015 | ESTETRA SRL | Orodispersible dosage unit containing an estetrol component |
| 10888518, | Jun 18 2015 | ESTETRA SRL | Orodispersible tablet containing estetrol |
| 10894014, | Jun 18 2015 | ESTETRA SRL | Orodispersible tablet containing Estetrol |
| 11147771, | Jun 18 2015 | ESTETRA SRL | Orodispersible dosage unit containing an estetrol component |
| 3138588, | |||
| 3433785, | |||
| 5164405, | Feb 28 1989 | EKR THERAPEUTICS, INC | Nicardipine pharmaceutical composition for parenteral administration |
| 5340586, | Feb 03 1993 | University of Southern California | Methods and formulations for use in treating oophorectomized women |
| 6117446, | Jan 26 1999 | PLACE, VIRGIL A | Drug dosage unit for buccal administration of steroidal active agents |
| 6723348, | Nov 16 2001 | ETHYPHARM | Orodispersible tablets containing fexofenadine |
| 6992218, | Jun 06 2000 | NEW PHARMATOP L P | Method for obtaining aqueous formulations of oxidation-sensitive active principles |
| 7723320, | May 18 2001 | ESTETRA SPRL | Use of estrogen compounds to increase libido in women |
| 7732430, | May 23 2001 | ESTETRA SRL | Drug delivery system comprising a tetrahydroxilated estrogen for use in hormonal contraception |
| 7871995, | May 23 2001 | ESTETRA SPRL | Drug delivery system comprising a tetrahydroxylated estrogen for use in hormonal contraception |
| 7923440, | Jun 11 2002 | ESTETRA SPRL | Method of treating or preventing immune mediated disorders and pharmaceutical formulation for use therein |
| 7943604, | Jun 11 2002 | ESTETRA SPRL | Method of treating human skin and a skin care composition for use in such a method |
| 8026228, | Nov 15 2001 | ESTETRA SPRL | Estrogenic compounds in combination with progestogenic compounds in hormone-replacement therapy |
| 8048869, | May 18 2001 | ESTETRA SPRL | Pharmaceutical composition for use in hormone replacement therapy |
| 8236785, | Jan 08 2007 | ESTETRA SPRL | Method of treating or preventing infertility in a female mammal and pharmaceutical kit for use in such method |
| 8367647, | Jun 21 2007 | ESTETRA SPRL | Treatment of meconium aspiration syndrome with estrogens |
| 8518923, | Jul 19 2007 | ESTETRA SRL | Treatment or prevention of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy or fetal growth retardation |
| 8987240, | Oct 23 2002 | ESTETRA SRL | Pharmaceutical compositions comprising estetrol derivatives for use in cancer therapy |
| 8987484, | Oct 07 2011 | MITHRA RECHERCHE ET DÉVELOPPEMENT SA | Process for the production of estetrol |
| 9034854, | Jul 12 2002 | ESTETRA SRL | Pharmaceutical composition comprising estetrol derivatives for use in cancer therapy |
| 9040509, | Jun 11 2002 | ESTETRA SRL | Method of treating human skin and a skin care composition for use in such a method |
| 9238035, | Apr 19 2012 | NEURALIS SA | Estrogenic components for use in the treatment of neurological disorders |
| 9561238, | Oct 23 2002 | ESTETRA SRL | Pharmaceutical compositions comprising estetrol derivatives for use in cancer therapy |
| 9579329, | Aug 11 2011 | ESTETRA SRL | Use of estetrol as emergency contraceptive |
| 9603860, | Jul 28 2010 | LABORATORIOS LEON FARMA SA | Pharmaceutical compositions comprising active drugs, contraceptive kits comprising active drugs, and methods of administering the same |
| 9884064, | Dec 12 2013 | ESTETRA SRL | Orally disintegrating solid dosage unit containing an estetrol component |
| 9987287, | Dec 12 2013 | ESTETRA SRL | Orally disintegrating solid dosage unit containing an estetrol component |
| 9988417, | Sep 18 2013 | CRYSTAL PHARMA, S A U | Process for the preparation of estetrol |
| 20020132801, | |||
| 20020193356, | |||
| 20040009960, | |||
| 20040192620, | |||
| 20040198671, | |||
| 20050032755, | |||
| 20050106240, | |||
| 20050113350, | |||
| 20050147670, | |||
| 20060211669, | |||
| 20060276414, | |||
| 20070048369, | |||
| 20070286819, | |||
| 20070286829, | |||
| 20080113953, | |||
| 20080166406, | |||
| 20100035987, | |||
| 20100093679, | |||
| 20110021504, | |||
| 20110250272, | |||
| 20110250274, | |||
| 20120077888, | |||
| 20120128733, | |||
| 20120220556, | |||
| 20130079400, | |||
| 20140083639, | |||
| 20140107091, | |||
| 20140107358, | |||
| 20140235882, | |||
| 20150045300, | |||
| 20150182540, | |||
| 20160101116, | |||
| 20160310506, | |||
| 20160367567, | |||
| 20170196886, | |||
| 20170216318, | |||
| 20170369521, | |||
| 20180265540, | |||
| 20190167700, | |||
| 20200004672, | |||
| 20200046729, | |||
| 20200352959, | |||
| 20210154211, | |||
| 20220096385, | |||
| CL200501207, | |||
| CL2013003435, | |||
| CL201400802, | |||
| CN101443015, | |||
| CN101541326, | |||
| CN101631536, | |||
| CN101780073, | |||
| CN102058604, | |||
| CN104379148, | |||
| CN1197387, | |||
| CN1780634, | |||
| DE202009018024, | |||
| EP136011, | |||
| EP371466, | |||
| EP646592, | |||
| EP748190, | |||
| EP200102017, | |||
| EP3046928, | |||
| EP3106148, | |||
| JP2002508330, | |||
| JP2005523283, | |||
| JP2009256344, | |||
| JP2010513514, | |||
| JP2012240917, | |||
| JP2014224079, | |||
| JP2018165263, | |||
| JP3237557, | |||
| WO42942, | |||
| WO42955, | |||
| WO105806, | |||
| WO140255, | |||
| WO2094275, | |||
| WO2094276, | |||
| WO2094277, | |||
| WO2094278, | |||
| WO2094279, | |||
| WO2094281, | |||
| WO249675, | |||
| WO3018026, | |||
| WO3041718, | |||
| WO2004006936, | |||
| WO2004019954, | |||
| WO2004041289, | |||
| WO2004096259, | |||
| WO2004103377, | |||
| WO2005030175, | |||
| WO2005030176, | |||
| WO2005051400, | |||
| WO2005105103, | |||
| WO2005115349, | |||
| WO2005115351, | |||
| WO2006002937, | |||
| WO2006027347, | |||
| WO2006120035, | |||
| WO2006125800, | |||
| WO2007081206, | |||
| WO2007106264, | |||
| WO2008003363, | |||
| WO2008003432, | |||
| WO2008156365, | |||
| WO2010012490, | |||
| WO2010033832, | |||
| WO2010089078, | |||
| WO2010149273, | |||
| WO2011128336, | |||
| WO2012000981, | |||
| WO2012055840, | |||
| WO2013012326, | |||
| WO2013021025, | |||
| WO2013090117, | |||
| WO2013156329, | |||
| WO2014159377, | |||
| WO2014189836, | |||
| WO2015040051, | |||
| WO2015086643, | |||
| WO2016023009, | |||
| WO2016053946, | |||
| WO2016187269, | |||
| WO2016203006, | |||
| WO2016203009, | |||
| WO2016203011, | |||
| WO2016203044, | |||
| WO2016207298, | |||
| WO2018024912, | |||
| WO2018065076, | |||
| WO2019154899, | |||
| WO2019202141, | |||
| WO2019202142, | |||
| WO2021209591, | |||
| WO9502408, | |||
| WO9517895, | |||
| WO9603929, | |||
| WO9930728, |
| Executed on | Assignor | Assignee | Conveyance | Frame | Reel | Doc |
| Apr 19 2019 | ESTETRA SPRL | (assignment on the face of the patent) | / | |||
| Sep 01 2020 | MAWET, MARIE | ESTETRA SPRL | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 054099 | /0646 | |
| Oct 01 2020 | TAZIAUX, MELANIE | ESTETRA SPRL | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 054099 | /0646 | |
| Oct 01 2020 | RAUSIN, GLWADYS | ESTETRA SPRL | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 054099 | /0646 | |
| Oct 01 2020 | JOST, MAUD | ESTETRA SPRL | ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 054099 | /0646 | |
| Dec 09 2020 | ESTETRA SPRL | ESTETRA SRL | CHANGE OF NAME SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 061786 | /0582 | |
| Aug 08 2022 | MITHRA PHARMACEUTICALS SA | KROLL TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED | SECURITY INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 061373 | /0521 | |
| Aug 08 2022 | MITHRA RECHERCHE ET DÉVELOPPEMENT SA | KROLL TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED | SECURITY INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 061373 | /0521 | |
| Aug 08 2022 | ESTETRA SRL | KROLL TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED | SECURITY INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 061373 | /0521 | |
| Aug 08 2022 | NOVALON SA | KROLL TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED | SECURITY INTEREST SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 061373 | /0521 | |
| Jun 11 2024 | KROLL TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED | ESTETRA SRL | RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS | 068591 | /0078 |
| Date | Maintenance Fee Events |
| Oct 16 2020 | BIG: Entity status set to Undiscounted (note the period is included in the code). |
| Date | Maintenance Schedule |
| Nov 01 2025 | 4 years fee payment window open |
| May 01 2026 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
| Nov 01 2026 | patent expiry (for year 4) |
| Nov 01 2028 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 4) |
| Nov 01 2029 | 8 years fee payment window open |
| May 01 2030 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
| Nov 01 2030 | patent expiry (for year 8) |
| Nov 01 2032 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 8) |
| Nov 01 2033 | 12 years fee payment window open |
| May 01 2034 | 6 months grace period start (w surcharge) |
| Nov 01 2034 | patent expiry (for year 12) |
| Nov 01 2036 | 2 years to revive unintentionally abandoned end. (for year 12) |